Catholic Belief is Unified, Right?

8 08 2010

Catholic apologists have us believe that Catholics are unified on all Christian doctrine and belief. Since the Catholics have the Pope and an infallible Magesterium, they have the full and final revelation of God, and this revelation is based both on Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Patty Bonds, sister of James White (of Alpha & Omega Ministries fame) and author of the blog Abba’s Little Girl, brought up the subject of infants perishing in hell in a recent post. As a former Calvinist, Patty believed that infants who died in infancy would go to heaven if elect, and hell if not.

I had also come to the conclusion that even unborn babies that perished were subject to God’s capricious picking and choosing. . . . So if a child was still born, it was entirely up to God whether that child would die with his sinful human nature and suffer damnation for it or if he would somehow become “regenerate” and be saved. (source)

She’s backed by the Westminster Confession of Faith, by the way:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (X.3)

Many find this idea hard to swallow, and so they hold to something referred to as the “age of accountability.” In this scheme, if a soul is taken from us prior to its ability to hear the call of the Spirit, and so could not have made an informed choice, the soul departs and is with God. In this setup, God won’t hold the soul accountable for sins because the soul doesn’t understand what that means.

In other words, infants dying prior to a certain age (differing based on the individual, but usually between 5 and 7) or the mentally handicapped are always taken to heaven.

It’s warm and fuzzy, isn’t it? But Catholic Steve Ray has some scathing things to say about that:

The Protestant doctrine of the “age of accountability says that babies, young children, mentally retarded, etc. are not accountable for their sins since they are not old enough or capable of commiting moral offence against God. They are therefore not sinners, or at least not held accountable. . . .

The Bible seems to teach that a baby is a sinner (because the Bible says all have sinned, right?) and that “the wages of sin is death”, so if a baby dies, it must go straight to hell. Is there anything that can save them before they are mentally able to understand the Gospel and “accept Christ as their Savior”? Are all children thus given a death sentence for the first decade of their lives? My that seems cruel and heartless, contrary to the love and mercy of God.

It sure is convenient to have the man-made, invented doctrine of the “age of accountability”. This makes some sense of these verses in the Bible. But, what chapter and verse do we turn to as a proof text for this doctrine Jerry? Whre are these words in the Bible? We soon find they don’t exist. Protestants invented them. . . .

There are however, simple solutions to these problems. The [Catholic] Church has resolved the problem; in fact, it never had the problem. (source)

Except that it did have the same problem, and it still does.

Augustine, who the Catholics are always quick to claim as their own, held that infants who died prior to baptism were eternally damned. This is very similar to the Calvinist beliefs blasted both by Patty Bonds and Steve Ray.

Catholics used to believe that infants who died prior to baptism would go to limbo, contrary to Augustine. The issue has been hotly debated, even in Augustine’s time, and no official Catholic position has ever been set down. Instead, limbo is (even today) held as a possible theological conclusion, but is not the only possible conclusion. Since there is no official published Catholic position, individual Catholics are free to believe as their conscience dictates.

So, what’s the advantage to being Catholic again?





Animated Mischaracterization of Calvinism

8 08 2010

I read the blog of James White’s sister, Patty Bonds, quite frequently. Through it, I discovered this video. It’s amusing.

Patty feels that it accurately represents Calvinism. She writes:

I was probably one of the most radical Calvinists of all. I would and did stand flat footed and state unwaveringly that all five points of the TULIP were infallible and that those who were not elect were going to glorify God simply by their depraved lives and their eternal damnation. I had also come to the conclusion that even unborn babies that perished were subject to God’s capricious picking and choosing. I had been taught that since it was Tradition that taught us that children were not guilty of actual sin until after an age of accountability that we should reject that idea along with the whole of Catholic Tradition. So if a child was still born, it was entirely up to God whether that child would die with his sinful human nature and suffer damnation for it or if he would somehow become “regenerate” and be saved. If your head is spinning right now, don’t feel alone. I can’t believe I once believed this rubbish either.

So, while Jim’s folks have a cow about this video and bluster about bearing false witness and all, I have to say I found the video not only funny, but also an accurate representation of my own former Calvinist beliefs. I’d say they were also Jim’s but he would just tell me I’m wrong like everyone else is wrong when they find fault in him. Whatever. (source)

Of course, the video does not accurately represent Calvinism. I was toying with the idea of picking through this video and showing how badly it misrepresents Calvinism, but TurretinFan has done that for me. He said everything that I would have said, so enjoy his short but excellent refutation of the video.





This is an Interesting Comment

7 08 2010

I’m trying to figure out the meaning of Amos Keppler (@hoodedman)’s Twitter status:

@antitheistangie There is no lack of people criticizing Islam. I see it as my task to be among the few criticizing christianity #atheism (source)

Is this guy on some kind of cool psychedelic drugs? What does he mean to be “among the few criticizing christianity?” Since when is there a shortage of people criticizing Christianity? Every atheist blog I’ve read criticizes Christianity in the bulk of their posts. I assume that the ones I haven’t read do the same (and there are a lot of atheist blogs–the Atheist Blogroll is currently boasting 1,132 members).

Yet, they claim not to be anti-Christian. They claim to be anti-religion. However, even when the chance arises to criticize another religion, they don’t.

In conclusion, this dude needs to get a clue before opening his mouth again.





Site Networks Announced!

6 08 2010

It has become easier for me to manage my growing number of sites by creating two site networks. The domains “christiandelusion.info” and “godisnotimaginary.info” will now be networks, the first dedicated to critiques of John W. Loftus and his comrades, and the second a critique of parody religions used to step on the veracity of Christianity.

The site network for “godisnotimaginary.info” will consist of the following sites:

The site network for “christiandelusion.info” will consist of the following sites:





Market Research

5 08 2010

The economy is tanking, and my family (like everyone else’s, I know) is suffering alongside. This blog and all content therein is (and will remain) free. The upkeep (domain name) is not free, however. This means that I am devoting a significant portion of my time to writing and maintaining fresh content on a resource from which I derive no income and actually costs me a nominal amount of money annually to maintain.

In order to keep doing this, I must generate at least some revenue from this venture. Although I have set up a way to receive donations, which has generated some interest, no donations are coming in. After careful consideration, I have decided that producing e-books is the best way to continue this ministry.

That does not mean that I’m shutting down the blog or that I will begin to charge for reading it. Far from. I will continue to update the blog, hopefully as much (or more) as I already do. I want this resource to remain free.

However, I would like to produce e-books in addition to what I’m already doing here. These e-books will both be original as well as expansions of past articles. I have numerous ideas, but I need to focus my efforts where they will do the most good. As such, I have constructed a poll. What follows are all of my ideas for e-books so far. I would like you, the reader, to vote on the ones that you would be most interested in reading.

If you have any questions, send me an e-mail or comment below for all to see.





The Discussion Board is No More

1 08 2010

I’ve given up on the Josiah Concept Ministries discussion board idea. Although it seems to get plenty of views, only 3 people have signed up for it–including me. Only I’ve started threads, and one other user has responded only to my introductory post. The third user hasn’t even made a single post.

Therefore, as I finish up proofs for God is NOT Imaginary, I will be enabling the built-in comments section from Google Sites. Hopefully this will generate some discussion. The same will be happening over at the Are Christians Deluded? site. As I finish up my counterpoint articles, I will enable the built-in comments.

To help everyone keep up with Are Christians Deluded? and God is NOT Imaginary, I have added the blog feeds in the sidebar.





Revising Opinions of People

1 08 2010

Sometimes, first impressions are not always right. I did something that I usually don’t do in regard to people in the course of writing this blog: I let the opinions of others unduly influence my opinion of another blogger. I generally ignore what other people say about a person I’ve just met and form my own opinion. But I never did that with a particular individual that I’ve had the fortune (or misfortune?) of encountering in the past.

The individual of which I speak is Dave Armstrong. I have said of Dave:

Words in English are precise, and are chosen to convey something specific. No convergence was ever meant or implied between the words “vicar” and “disciple.” Dave needs to head to the book store and get himself a copy of On Writing Well by William Zinsser and carefully read the chapters on Simplicity, Clutter, and Words before he constructs his next “paper.” (source)

This pretty much summed up the position I held about Dave. I thought (and still do, in some respects) that his blog posts are unnecessarily long. Conventional wisdom says that a blog post should run 200 to 500 words. After that, your audience tends to lose interest.

However, I’m not one to talk. My posts can reach 1100 words or better on a regular basis. I think that when a person blogs about philosophy or theology, it requires more words than the average blogger since the average reader isn’t as studied in the background of such posts. Therefore, the blogger has to lay the groundwork for why he (or she) thinks what he (or she) does.

That said, I’ve recently started to take a liking to many of Dave’s recent posts. He disagreed with an atheist on YouTube (beginning of series) and constructed a post about the top 10 atheist arguments. He also has a project in the works about Christianity and modern science, trying to explode the atheistic myths that Christianity had nothing to do with the rise of science. More recently, he commented on Anne Rice’s deconversion from Christianity. In that post, Dave said something that I agree with in spirit, though being a Protestant I would understand “Christian authority” differently than Dave:

There are serious lessons to be learned here: along the lines of having an informed, reasonable faith (complete with apologetic knowledge as necessary), and of yielding up our private judgment and personal inclinations to a God and a Church much higher than ourselves. Faith comes ultimately by God’s grace and His grace alone: not our own semi-understandings. Christianity is not “blind faith”; it is a reasonable faith. But there is such a thing as allegiance and obedience to Christian authority, too.

This is rather similar to my expressed sentiments here. I state emphatically that I don’t question Rice’s salvation, for that (as Dave aptly expresses) is a gift from God resting solely on faith in Christ. Rice still expresses faith in Christ; she just refuses to be bound by some of the strictures of doctrine (e.g. being against homosexuality, birth control, feminism, and Democrats). What I question is Anne Rice’s sanctification: whether she has submitted to the authority of God expressed in Scripture. That is something that she must wrestle with, and I pray that God can show her the error of her ways.

In sum, my opinion of Dave has changed drastically. Dave is a capable writer and meticulous researcher. I was very wrong in my initial impressions of him, and for that I apologize.





I Could Never Be an Atheist

29 07 2010

I couldn’t be an atheist. I’m not inconsistent enough with my beliefs. Reference this article by VorJack of Unreasonable Faith fame. He quotes Geds of the Accidental Historian:

There was absolutely nothing special about the persecution of Christians.

The Roman authorities saw Christianity as a potentially destabilizing force in exactly the same way it saw criminals and revolutionaries as a destabilizing force. The only reason we’re lead to believe the stories of the Christian martyrs are special is because we have a lot of them.

Okay, then, might I make the same claim about the Crusades and the Inquisitions? “There was absolutely nothing special about the persecution of indigent tribes of nonbelievers, witches, or heretics. The Christian authorities saw them all as potentially destabilizing forces in exactly the same way as it saw criminals and revolutionaries as a destabililizing force. The only reason we’re lead to believe the stories of the nonbelievers, witches, and heretics’ torture and death are special is because critics of Christianity try to use them to argue against the faith.”

If the martyrdom of the early Christians at the hands of the Romans isn’t something to get excited about, neither is the later persecution of heretics at the hands of the Christians. The sword cuts both ways.





Catholics Have Their Priorities Straight!

28 07 2010

After reading this post from Matthew Bellisario, the self-proclaimed Catholic Champion, I had to write a reply. The crux of what Bellisario wrote can be read right here:

Faithful Catholics are sick and tired of heretical, scandalous priests in the Church. It seems that there are so many that it is almost impossible for good bishops to control them all. They destroy the liturgy to their own amusement while Catholics have to suffer their awful sermons, bad jokes and liturgical abuses. Fortunately I attend an Eastern Catholic Church and a Latin Mass only parish 99% of the time, and I am surrounded by great priests. But there are occasions where I have to endure the scourges of apostasy outside of these sanctuaries, and it is enough to get me fired up.

I have a petition to all of the orthodox Catholic bishops of the world who want to straighten out this mess in their diocese. Hire a good canon lawyer, and then threaten these apostate priests with the loss of retirement. In fact, I think that all of the orthodox bishops in the Church should wake up tomorrow morning and make an example out of someone. Pick the Father Pfleger of your diocese and punt them out of the Church in the same manner in which we saw Satan get fired down out of heaven, like lightening. Make it clear that any disobedience concerning the Catholic faith by a priest will be met with a swift defrocking and a loss of all retirement from the Church.

I originally wanted to post a comment to his blog rather than starting a new thread here, but since he has comment moderation enabled, I doubt what I wrote will get through. So, in case it doesn’t, here is my reply:

I hate to say this, because sex abuse scandal references even tire me (and I’m not Catholic by any stretch of the imagination), but I have to be the first one to say this:

If the bishops didn’t defrock priests that raped kids, what in the name of heaven makes you think that they will do so with a priest who deviates from the script of the Mass? Better question: which is the greater moral evil? One final question: if they do defrock a priest who ad libs a Mass but not a priest that raped numerous youngsters, how do think that is going to look to those outside the church, even an honest seeker who is mulling over joining a church?





Because I loved the Commercial. . .

26 07 2010

The commercial reminded me of my brother-in-law. So, even though it makes fun of God, I can’t help myself:

I suppose one could argue that I’m going to hell for blasphemy. Is it wrong for a Christian to find this funny?

HT to Common Sense Atheism